During jury deliberation, the jurors leave the courtroom for a private room, choose a foreperson, review the evidence and the judge’s written instructions, discuss the case, and vote until they reach a verdict or report that they cannot. No one else is allowed in the room while they talk, and their decision must rest on the evidence admitted at trial and the law as the judge explained it. The process can take a few hours or stretch into weeks, but the structure is largely the same from case to case.
Choosing a Foreperson
The first thing jurors do is pick a foreperson. In most courts, the jury selects one from among themselves; some jurisdictions automatically designate the first juror seated during selection. The role is administrative. The foreperson keeps the discussion orderly so each juror has a chance to speak, signs any written notes the jury sends to the judge, and reads the verdict aloud at the end. A signature on a note from the foreperson does not mean they personally agree with the question; it only confirms the note came from the jury.
Working From the Evidence and the Instructions
Jurors are given the exhibits that were formally admitted at trial. That can include documents, photographs, physical items, and sometimes audio or video. They also receive a written copy of the judge’s legal instructions, which function as the jury’s rulebook. The instructions set out what the prosecution or plaintiff must prove, the legal standards that apply, and how specific terms in the law should be read.
Jurors have to follow those instructions even if they disagree with the underlying law. The judge will say so before deliberations begin. Because no one monitors what happens inside the room, jurors do have the practical ability to ignore the instructions, a concept sometimes called jury nullification. Courts refuse to tell jurors about this power, and judges will not instruct a jury that nullification is an option. It exists as a byproduct of jury secrecy, not as a recognized right.
Discussion and Voting
Deliberation is a structured conversation. Each juror is encouraged to share how they read the evidence and how they think the law applies. Early on, many juries take an informal poll, often a show of hands, to see where everyone stands. That first count helps the group identify which issues need the most attention. More votes follow as the discussion continues, sometimes by secret ballot.
In a criminal case the verdict must be unanimous. The Supreme Court settled the question in 2020 in Ramos v. Louisiana, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury to convict a defendant of any serious offense in both federal and state courts. That ruling ended the practice in Louisiana and Oregon, which had allowed convictions on 10-to-2 votes. Civil cases work differently: federal civil juries also default to unanimity but the parties can agree in advance to accept a non-unanimous verdict, and state civil rules vary, with many states permitting majority or supermajority verdicts.
Asking the Judge Questions
Jurors are not lawyers, and questions about the instructions or the evidence come up often. When they do, the foreperson writes the question down and hands it to the bailiff, who takes it to the judge. The judge shares the note with both sides’ attorneys before deciding how to answer. Sometimes the response comes back in writing. Other times the judge brings the jury into the courtroom to give additional instructions on the record, with the attorneys and the defendant present.
Jurors can also ask for portions of trial testimony to be read back to them. The judge has discretion over whether to allow it, and if a readback is granted, it happens in open court. The jury will usually be cautioned that hearing one witness again risks giving that testimony outsized weight compared to the rest of the trial.
What Jurors Are Not Allowed to Do
The privacy of deliberations comes with strict obligations. Jurors cannot research the case on their own, look up legal terms online, visit any location connected to the case, or discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, including family. Social media is a common pitfall. Posting about the case, reading news coverage, or failing to disclose a social media connection to someone involved can trigger a mistrial and force the trial to start over.
The consequences are real. A juror who conducts outside research or communicates about the case can face contempt-of-court charges. In one federal case, a juror was fined more than $11,000 for researching case details online during a criminal trial, causing a mistrial. Any outside information that reaches the deliberation room can taint the verdict and deny both sides a fair trial.
Going Home or Being Sequestered
Most juries finish within a day or two, but complex cases can run much longer. When the jury cannot finish by the end of the day, the judge has two choices: send jurors home with instructions not to discuss the case with anyone, or sequester them. Sequestration means housing jurors in a hotel and cutting them off from news, social media, and most outside contact until they reach a verdict. In federal court, the government covers meals and lodging for sequestered jurors. Sequestration is uncommon today because of the burden it places on jurors, but judges will order it when there is a serious risk that media coverage or public pressure could influence the outcome.
When the Jury Cannot Agree
Sometimes jurors cannot reach a unanimous verdict no matter how long they talk. When the foreperson reports a deadlock, the judge will usually try to keep deliberations going. A common tool is a supplemental instruction asking jurors to listen to each other with open minds and reconsider their positions, without abandoning honestly held beliefs just to reach agreement. That instruction is often called an Allen charge, after an 1896 Supreme Court case that approved the practice in federal courts. Allen charges are controversial; critics argue they pressure holdout jurors into giving in. Many states have banned them, while federal courts still permit them with caution.
If the jury remains deadlocked after further instruction, the judge declares a mistrial. The trial ends without a verdict, and the defendant is neither convicted nor acquitted. Prosecutors can retry the case with a new jury or decide to drop the charges. Double jeopardy does not bar a retrial after a hung jury because no verdict was ever reached.
Replacing a Juror Mid-Deliberation
If a juror becomes unable to continue during deliberations because of illness, a family emergency, or misconduct, the court can substitute an alternate. Federal rules allow courts to retain alternates even after deliberations begin, but an alternate must not discuss the case with anyone until formally placed on the jury. When a substitution happens, the judge tells the jury to start deliberations over from the beginning so the new juror can participate fully. The replacement has the same authority as every other member of the panel.
Reading and Polling the Verdict
Once the jury agrees, the foreperson fills out and signs the official verdict form and tells the bailiff the jury is ready. The jurors are brought back into the courtroom, and the verdict is handed to the clerk or the judge and read aloud. Everyone, including the defendant, the attorneys, and the judge, hears the outcome at the same time.
After the verdict is announced, either side can ask the court to poll the jury. Polling means the clerk or judge asks each juror individually whether the verdict as read is their own decision. If any juror says it is not, the judge can send the jury back to deliberate further or declare a mistrial and order a new trial. Polling is the last checkpoint before the jury is discharged, confirming that no juror was pressured into agreeing with a verdict they did not actually support.